Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/Archive 4

Why is this noticeboard so compulsive?
The very specific, rigid, and detailed way in which a report must be written for this noticeboard has deterred me numerous times from bothering to report very obvious cases of edit warring. In addition, it takes two or more people to edit war; how is it that I have to pick one of them to report, which involves me deciding which the "original" version of the article was, which diffs are the reverts and which ones are not the reverts, in the wake of multiple changes by multiple editors?

For example, if I report " and are fighting at Nootropic", any admin, on looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nootropic&action=history, will see instantly that the two of them are edit warring. No other board I've had occasion to use makes reporting as much of an ordeal as this one. It's unnecessary and self-defeating. Largoplazo (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I would add that the instructions are so confusing, that even the Twinkle "helper" that semi-automates the reporting process skips some of them. Nobody seems to know what "Previous version reverted to:" means and everyone leaves it blank, including Twinkle. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This noticeboard is not the only one that is very structured. See, for example, WP:SPI and WP:AE. I don't find the instructions that hard. As for Twinkle, if there's something that Twinkle doesn't include that the instructions do, you can report that to Twinkle and/or you can add it after you create the Twinkle report as Twinkle does make it significantly easier to collect the diffs without having to copy and paste. There are solid reasons for forcing editors to follow the structure. One is that it makes it MUCH easier for administrators to evaluate the merits of the report. Second is it often brings home to editors what is needed if they are seeking sanctions. Think of it like filing a report at ANI. Although there is no required structure at ANI, it is required to notify the user and diffs are expected.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Bastun has a point about "Previous version reverted to:" I also generally leave it blank, I think I can understand the niche use cases where it could be used to illustrate really convoluted and drawn out edit wars but its basically vestigial. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I also think the mini rant (passive aggressive at best) we stick in there "You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too" is inappropriate and not in keeping with civility. I understand the frustration but its just so jerkish and off-putting, it jars me every time I see it. It makes us look like assholes and sets a really bad tone for the noticeboard. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Having recently filled out one of these, I can concur that it feels relatively byzantine compared to normal ANI procedures. Given that WP:3RR violations or obvious edit warring is often more clear cut than general disruptive behaviour this seems like the wrong way around. The "Previous version reverted to" part is often a bit irrelevant, particularly for long-running or slow boil edit wars where there may have been plenty of intervening edits. I also don't really see how it helps clarify already explicit WP:3RR violations. It would also definitely be useful to have the option to flag/raise the complaint against more than one party, esp. where one is reporting an edit war from the sidelines. Moreover, given that WP:3RR is a bright red line, I fail to see what the relevance of the "You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you?" line is ... discussion after an edit war has already happened isn't going to un-edit war. It's not like simply requesting a self-rv, like with an WP:1RR violation, will undo the damage. An edit war is, by its very nature a event where the parties involved have already ignored AGF and BRD to a significant degree. This is a noticeboard for intervention and ending/disciplining silly nonsense. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * SPI has a way of organizing the original complaint, commentary by others, and commentary by investigators, but there's no structure requirement for the submission, it's free-form. I've been submitting cases to SPI for years. It's nothing like EW. Largoplazo (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * SPI is very similar to AN3. There are instructions on how to file it, or you can use Twinkle. Many editors who do it "free-form" mess it up and it has to be fixed. I glanced at your filing of reports at SPI in the last few months, and you use Twinkle.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the structure helps prohibit filers from getting caught in the weeds arguing about content. 3RR violations are often bright line, so having a report that basically only asks for the name of the person you're reporting, the diffs showing the reverts, and confirmation that the editor being reported was warned about edit warring is all that is needed. It's pretty much fill-in-the-blank and makes review by admins much easier. If there are parts of the submission form that are outdated and unnecessary, then a discussion should be had to have them removed, but I think a move to a more unstructured report style is unneeded and would result in reports sitting unresolved longer. --  Ponyo bons mots 23:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What about keeping the current structure for the most part but trimming it down to basically just the person, page, talk notification, and four spots to place diffs. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It might just be easiest to see if there's concensus to remove "Previous version reverted to" and "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" (or make the latter optional). These seem to be the fields that are causing the most concern.-- Ponyo bons mots 23:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, what HEB described is the way it is now except for the two items mention.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Having just filed my first report, I concur with the removal of the "Previous version reverted to" section. I've re-read the sentence which purportedly explains what it is several times and I'm still not entirely sure what's supposed to be in there.
 * Also agree with Horse Eye's Back on the wording "You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you?" etc. It's inappropriate language and needs removing or rewording. Barry Wom (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Not being an admin, I can't say for sure, but it seems to me that looking at a page's history and seeing a sequence of file size changes like 934, &minus;934, 934, &minus;934, 934, &minus;934, 934, &minus;934, 934, &minus;934, or even just seeing the same two people going back and forth screaming at each other in the edit summaries would be an easier way of verifying that an edit war is transpiring than is individually visiting the links in a list of diffs. Largoplazo (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Having the four diffs in the report makes review easier and quicker for admins, or at least this admin.-- Ponyo bons mots 16:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Scope of noticeboard unclear
The lead of the noticeboard states, This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. Per WP:EDITWAR, The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.

I came here with a case of edit warring that didn't involve violation of specific restrictions like 3rr. But according to what I was told in my case, this noticeboard's scope is not the whole concept of edit warring, but rather specific instances of edit warringnamely, violations of the three-revert rule and tighter restrictions.

I think the lead should be modified to more clearly reflect this if this is the case. For example, This page is for reporting active edit warriors but limited to recent violations of specific restrictions like the three-revert rule.

Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 03:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The header is accurate. While edit warring usually consists of three reverts in 24 hours, there are cases of disruption that don't technically meet that requirement but still need to be dealt with by an administrator. In the case you opened, there was no edit warring happening at all - you just got reverted as a normal part of the editing process. – bradv  04:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason I brought the case was not only because of the reverts of my edits but also about the overall editing pattern that was going on by the editor. Maybe I should have included all the relevant diffs and not just the ones dealing with my edits. Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding the header, it is accurate, but it could be more clear, in my opinion. Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

3RR and the definition of a "revert"
Hello. There is a user I have butted heads with several times now around the exact definition of 3RR, and so I'd like some feedback.

The situation always plays out like this: the user adds new material to an article. They are reverted. They then proceed to re-add the material 3 more times. So, 4 edits within a 24-hour period. I have always considered this a 3RR violation.

The user in question does not believe they have broken 3RR, as the first edit technically wasn't a revert. It was one initial edit followed by 3 reverts.

Ignoring the fact that you can still be blocked for edit warring even if you haven't broken 3RR, which is the correct definition of 3RR? — Czello (music) 06:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The first edit is not a revert; so in your case, the user did not break 3RR. Lourdes  07:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at WT:EW
Volunteers at this page might be interested in a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Glitch?
Not sure if this is technical issue, (either one time or on-going), but I had typed out comments and signed, and even previewed the report before submitting, but then only after did I notice that the comments & sig had disappearred. Posting this here to see if anyone else has experienced the same issue. - w o lf  15:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Multiple user names
There's a user who is mildly obsessed with a wiki and has been consistently argumentative and domineering. They also have gotten in trouble for this before, so they're now using multiple user names (it's the exact same edits, only on this one wiki). They're reverting edits incessantly but use both names to get around 3RR. What should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medievalonion (talk • contribs) 20:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , no using multiple accounts in the manner you describe is not allowed. I'm in the process of blocking the accounts now.-- Ponyo bons mots 20:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Future reports can be made at Sockpuppet investigations/Specialkay12.-- Ponyo bons mots 20:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ponyo based on the historical use of one of the IPs and the naming overlap, this could be Sockpuppet investigations/Priscilla 223. Just an FYI if you want to chase further. Izno (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well well well, there's an exact match to one of the IPs in the CU log. I'll ask for a case merge. Cheers, .-- Ponyo bons mots 23:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * thank you! Medievalonion (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)